Obama Endangers Israel

[BaalChatzaf]

There is an ancient portent called the Blood Moon Tetrad...

...which is a sequence of four total lunar eclipses. Previous Blood Moon Tetrads:

Jesus crucified (33ad)

Destruction of Jerusalem (70ad)

Jews driven from Spain and America discovered (1492ad)

Israel becomes nation (1949ad)

6 day war Jerusalem reclaimed(1967ad)

The next Blood Moon Tetrad begins April 15th 2014.

Greg

I hope you realize that this is all nonsense, astronomically speaking.

It is an atmospheric effect and nothing more.

The Hunter’s Moon, in skylore, is also sometimes called the Blood Moon. Why? Probably because it’s a characteristic of these autumn full moons that they appear nearly full – and rise soon after sunset – for several evenings in a row. Many people see them when they are low in the sky, shortly after they’ve risen, at which time there’s more atmosphere between you and the moon than when the moon is overhead. When you see the moon low in the sky, the extra air between you and the moon makes the moon look reddish. Voila. Blood moon.

It is the same optical effect as red sunsets. The light of the moon is being refracted by the atmosphere

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

I personally believe she should not drag the USA into it. But if America shall, it must be for reasons of principle-to a friend, never out of a reluctant sense of oblgation.

Tony,

In my view, the principle is one of the oldest in human relations.

When bullies organize and beef up their weapons, the day will come when they will attack peaceful people so they can bully these new victims.

That's about as simple a universal as I can think of and it never fails. When people say history ignored is history repeated (or variations like "those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it"), I believe they mean this universal.

Stated as a prescription, if you have to live next to a bully, don't let him get too strong and don't let yourself get too weak.

The galling thing with Israel for the sundry bullies in all our diverse cultures is the Jewish people stopped acting like easy pickings. Victims are not supposed to act the way they do now and that bothers some folks on a deep, deep level. It's like watching fish grow wings and growl or a tree grow upside down. It doesn't fit their view of how reality is supposed to be.

If the USA is going to give aid to the different bullies in the Middle East, which it does in abundance, why not give aid to the intended victim (Israel) as well?

The real problem is giving foreign aid to begin with. Not giving aid to Israel.

Michael

Michael, There is something atavistic you've zeroed in on. Every time one starts believing mankind is getting past it, it arises again. Them weak, we strong - kill. Them stronger, we hate.

As another deep 'narrative' it won't be going away forseeably.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Francisco wrote:

No money can be used morally if that money originated in theft.

end quote.

And Greg worried about an economic collapse in 2015. It worries me too.

Francisco and I are carrying on the same conversation on two different threads. Francisco, your generalizations are squeezing the guts out of my arguments, and not because you are just so darned smart. Theft? All taxation is not theft.

Since the IRS has never said which non-payments of taxes it will not prosecute, we may regard all payments as having been made under duress.

Constant consent is not required in a Constitutional country (tpir: that protects individual rights.) By remaining in this country all Americans give their tacit confirmation of the government’s actions but they are welcome to protest and vote the bums out of office, just as occurred in the Ukraine at the end of the cold war. I will say the coup de tata this last time was justified. Have you heard of the missing billions of rubles and the lavish palace the deposed Ukrainian President had?

Since when did voting make theft moral? If the government decides to give half my income to poor folks and the poor folks outvote me in the next election, everything is fair and square? I certainly don't remember reading anything about that in The Virtue of Selfishness. The fact that the government has me outmanned and outgunned doesn't suddenly make it a legitimate authority. Furthermore, why should those who initiate force, who daily commit theft and kidnapping and murder have a greater claim to legitimacy than someone who minds his own business and follows the non-aggression principle? Unless you believe that might makes right, it is the gang of lself-legitimized thieves and bullies who ought to be leaving the country.

A gang of rapists can outvote a girl on a dark street, too.

Adams linked photos of the Viet Nam war protests made me glad to live in 2014. We deserved better. When Prime Minister Yeltsen left office he opened up the files of the KGB which proved money was flowing from the Soviet Union to protesters in America. Not all, but many of those anti-war leaders were traitors taking bribe money, or were monsters like Hanoi Jane Fonda, willing to kill her own country men.

It wasn't Soviet money to a few protest groups that turned a majority of Americans against the Vietnam War. It was the war itself.

Yes, Francisco and Greg. I agree that excess taxation must stop and that the debt must be paid. I worry about a crash. But I also worry about totalitarians invading other countries. Remember the guy who promised, “Peace in Our Time,” just before the German Nazi’s next blitzkrieg? Doing nothing is appeasement. Doing nothing because of “pie in the sky absolutism” is not sensible.

"Excess taxation" falls into the same category as "excess rights violation."

Nobody is saying that nothing should be done. We simply want you to do it with your own resources.

[Peter]

Francisco once again stresses his main thesis when he writes: Since the IRS has never said which non-payments of taxes it will not prosecute, we may regard all payments as having been made under duress.

end quote

So one must conclude, all taxation is theft. And who does that remind me of? George H. Smith who declares all governments are illegitimate. Here is my rebuttal from a Randian’s perspective.

George H. Smith wrote:

Ayn Rand defends a consent doctrine in several of her essays, but she never explains how this consent should manifest itself - whether, for example, it must be explicit or merely tacit (as Locke believed). Nor does she explain precisely which rights are delegated to government and how they are transferred. Therefore, although Rand appears to fall within the social contract tradition (at least in a general way), it is unclear where she would stand on the nature and method of political consent. I sincerely hope that some of her minarchist followers can shed some light on this problem.”

end quote

And George continued with:

I agree with these critics. If we accept the premise that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and if we insist that these individuals must consent to be ruled by a government, and if we condemn as illegitimate all governments that rule without consent - then all governments, past and present, have been illegitimate.

end quote

If he thinks all taxation is theft, and all governments are illegitimate, does Francisco or George have a moral right to tear up the Constitution? No.

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon, Fallacy of the “Stolen Concept:” The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.

And from, “Maybe You’re Wrong,” The Objectivist Forum, April 1981, volume 9 by Leonard Peikoff:

Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts . . . .” Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless.

The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing.

end quote

An Anti Federalist said, “By its nature Government must be able to wield its power without the consent of the people that it is wielding it against. If it had their consent it wouldn't need that power. That person may never have consented, and being born here and not leaving is hardly consent.”

Yet, did all the immigrating occupants of Ayn Rand’s “Atlantis” consent to being there? Yes, unless there was a stowaway living on Midas Mulligan’s land. Did any children born there give their consent? No. But until they reached a “majority age” their right of consent was granted by their parents who are their guardians. After that initial agreement to establish a Government, would “implied consent” be moral? Yes, even without unanimous consent the establishment of America was legitimate.

So I think Francisco’s argument is invalid. If Francisco stays here living under taxation and without giving his consent to be governed we can only expect him to start zeroing in on the Bill of Rights.

Freedom of speech. How much is it going to cost me? I’m not paying for anybody else’s free speech.

The state wants to establish a religion? Is it my religion or non religion? If its mine OK, but I still won’t pay for it. Nor will I pay a penny to keep somebody else’s bloody state religion from being started.

Don’t touch my rifle! I don’t want to buy another one just because some busy body claims my gun is fully automatic. Screw those who are too scared to bear arms.

Freedom of the press. I won’t pay a dime for that but I might buy a newspaper.

I get a jury trial, Magistrate? I don’t recognized your immorally taxed legitimacy. Well, I’m not paying 50 bucks a day per person, or my share of that, to pay for a twelve person jury. I will decide if I am guilty or not.

Ayn Rand moved to America and did not immigrate to a more free land. She paid her taxes, accepted social security, and Medicare and believed in voluntary taxation as the end game of a free society. We know enough about her mind, and convictions to say she would not have done that if it had not been morally right.

Has so much has changed since her death, a few years ago? The personal tax rates may actually be less now, but the government’s deficit spending and national debt has increased. Does debt define American values? No, but it places an unfair obligation on future generations. We are the same country with the same Constitution but we have changed. What would be repulsive to the Founding Fathers? Certainly the use of executive orders that bypass a complacent Congress, regulations, and the gigantic debt.

America is a place and an experiment. The chance nature of the universe and the immense expanse of time, has been beaten back by the scientific method, and ingenious government in a few short centuries. Libertarians, fight for America’s perfection through elections and amendments. Carp about the cost but support your country. Pay your taxes.

[Peter]

It is interesting to see the perspective of the Israelis, and staggering to see what they must deal with.

Peter

From The Times of Israel:

Story one. Dozens of rockets, boxes of hundreds thousands of bullets and nearly 200 mortar rounds will be opened for the world to see Monday as Israel puts weapons on show from a recently intercepted ship smuggling arms that it says exposes the “true face of Iran” which allegedly dispatched it.

Story two. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly asked his cabinet secretary to investigate a highly complicated Dutch-Belgian border arrangement, under which citizens of one country live in enclaves within the other, as a possible precedent to enable Jewish settlers in the West Bank to remain under Israeli rule inside a future Palestinian state . . . . The prime minister has tasked Cabinet Secretary Avichai Mandelblit with researching the arrangements that prevail in the Belgian “Baarle-Hertog” and Dutch “Baarle-Nassau” areas — complex border arrangements that originated in a mixture of medieval treaties, land swaps, land sales and other agreements — to see whether they constitute a viable legal precedent for similar arrangements under which Jewish settlers could stay put within a Palestinian state, Israel’s Channel 2 news reported on Sunday night.

Story three. A Palestinian man was shot and killed at an Israeli-Jordanian border crossing Monday morning, after reportedly attacking a soldier there. The incident occurred at the Allenby Bridge border crossing in the Jordan Valley, connecting the West Bank to Jordan. The dead man was identified by the Palestinian Ma’an news agency as Nablus resident Raed Zeiter, 38.

According to a Facebook page associated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s office, Zeiter was a Jordanian passport holder and served as a civil court judge in the Hashemite Kingdom.

According to the Israel Defense Forces, Zeiter attacked one of the soldiers and attempted to snatch a gun from him. Ofer Lefler, spokesman for the Israel Airports Authority which is responsible for all border crossings, told AFP the incident occurred after the attacker crossed at Allenby from Jordan.

“A 30-year-old Palestinian man who crossed the bridge attacked a soldier, who shot him,” he said.

A Jordanian security official told AFP that Zeiter worked as a judge in Amman and had left for the West Bank early on Monday.

Jordan’s justice ministry confirmed the information, saying he worked at a magistrate’s court in the capital.

Palestinian security officials said he was originally from the northern West Bank city of Nablus, but had left the territories in 2011 and not returned. Family members in Amman expressed shock over his death.

“We did not know that Raed was in the West Bank. I went to the court to check if he was working and I was told that he did not go to work today,” said his 70-year-old father, Alaa Zeiter, himself a former judge.

“My son is peaceful and professional. I am shocked,” he told AFP by phone, before breaking down in tears. The Palestinian Authority strongly condemned the incident and demanded an international investigation into the circumstances of Zeiter’s death.

“The Palestinian government vigorously condemns the shooting at close range of Judge Raed Zeiter… while he was coming in from Jordan,” it said. It also called for an “international investigative committee to probe this incident.” No one else was hurt in the incident. The crossing was reopened in the afternoon.

[moralist]

And Greg worried about an economic collapse in 2015. It worries me too.

I'm not actually worried, Peter...

...even though there will certainly be another collapse because absolutely nothing has changed since the last one in 2008. The way to remain unaffected by these economic cycles is to have no financial exposure to the corrupted economic sectors (Government, Credit, Education, Debt, Insurance, Healthcare, Law, Unions). In fact, it is even possible to prosper during those times by operating from a position of 100% solvency, because events like 2008 are the return to reality of Capital from the fantasyland of debt. Solvency is the lamb's blood over the lentel of your door during Passover that protects you from the Death Angel of Debt when it comes to reap its harvest of fools.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

Francisco once again stresses his main thesis when he writes: Since the IRS has never said which non-payments of taxes it will not prosecute, we may regard all payments as having been made under duress.

end quote

So one must conclude, all taxation is theft. And who does that remind me of? George H. Smith who declares all governments are illegitimate. Here is my rebuttal from a Randian’s perspective.

George H. Smith wrote:

Ayn Rand defends a consent doctrine in several of her essays, but she never explains how this consent should manifest itself - whether, for example, it must be explicit or merely tacit (as Locke believed). Nor does she explain precisely which rights are delegated to government and how they are transferred. Therefore, although Rand appears to fall within the social contract tradition (at least in a general way), it is unclear where she would stand on the nature and method of political consent. I sincerely hope that some of her minarchist followers can shed some light on this problem.”

end quote

And George continued with:

I agree with these critics. If we accept the premise that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and if we insist that these individuals must consent to be ruled by a government, and if we condemn as illegitimate all governments that rule without consent - then all governments, past and present, have been illegitimate.

end quote

If he thinks all taxation is theft, and all governments are illegitimate, does Francisco or George have a moral right to tear up the Constitution? No.

This is not an anarchism-minarchism issue.

Anyone who has read "Government Financing in a Free Society" knows that Ayn Rand maintained that "the government of a free society may not initiate the use of physical force and may use force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use" and further that "the imposition of taxes does represent an initiation of force."

Thus, in taking a stand not only against the increasing of taxes and inflation (which, along with other assaults on freedom, would follow inevitably from another foreign war), but against taxation itself, I am defending one of Objectivism's core political principles.

If I am "tearing up the Constitution," then so was Ayn Rand, whose political philosophy would never have granted government the "power to lay and collect taxes.”

Moreover, in treating the fight against the tax slavery imposed on me as more important than the campaign to rid the Ukraine of Russian oppression, I am practicing the Objectivist virtue of selfishness, specifically of regarding my own freedom as a more immediate and important concern than the freedom of those on the other side of the globe.

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon, Fallacy of the “Stolen Concept:” The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.

And from, “Maybe You’re Wrong,” The Objectivist Forum, April 1981, volume 9 by Leonard Peikoff:

Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts . . . .” Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless.

The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing.

end quote

I have no idea what this has do do with the topic at hand.

An Anti Federalist said, “By its nature Government must be able to wield its power without the consent of the people that it is wielding it against. If it had their consent it wouldn't need that power. That person may never have consented, and being born here and not leaving is hardly consent.”

Do you have a source for this quote? It sounds very much like an argument for the continued rule over the colonies by King George.

Yet, did all the immigrating occupants of Ayn Rand’s “Atlantis” consent to being there? Yes, unless there was a stowaway living on Midas Mulligan’s land. Did any children born there give their consent? No. But until they reached a “majority age” their right of consent was granted by their parents who are their guardians. After that initial agreement to establish a Government, would “implied consent” be moral? Yes, even without unanimous consent the establishment of America was legitimate.

No majority, not even one million to one, has the moral authority to deprive a human being of his rights. Rights are derived not from majority rule but from man's nature. And man's nature does not suddenly change on the whim of voters.

The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. (Atlas Shrugged)

So I think Francisco’s argument is invalid. If Francisco stays here living under taxation and without giving his consent to be governed we can only expect him to start zeroing in on the Bill of Rights.

Freedom of speech. How much is it going to cost me? I’m not paying for anybody else’s free speech.

. .

Let's ask a related question: what kind of person would be willing to enjoy the freedoms of living in America without the concomitant willingness to fight for those freedoms?

Should we therefore conclude that the draft is a morally legitimate way of raising an army? (If you're interested in how Ayn Rand would answer, read "The Roots of War.")

The difference between enslaving a man full time (taking all of his labor) and enslaving him part time (seizing a portion of the products of his labor) is only one of degree.

Ayn Rand moved to America and did not immigrate to a more free land. She paid her taxes, accepted social security, and Medicare and believed in voluntary taxation as the end game of a free society. We know enough about her mind, and convictions to say she would not have done that if it had not been morally right.

Nothing done under the threat of force, including payment of taxes, implies consent or agreement. Like 99% of us, Rand paid her taxes because she did not wish to end up in a federal cage.

Has so much has changed since her death, a few years ago? The personal tax rates may actually be less now, but the government’s deficit spending and national debt has increased. Does debt define American values? No, but it places an unfair obligation on future generations. We are the same country with the same Constitution but we have changed. What would be repulsive to the Founding Fathers? Certainly the use of executive orders that bypass a complacent Congress, regulations, and the gigantic debt.

In the name of the Founding Fathers, let us resist all who call for fresh new expenditures on top of what we must already bear.

America is a place and an experiment. The chance nature of the universe and the immense expanse of time, has been beaten back by the scientific method, and ingenious government in a few short centuries. Libertarians, fight for America’s perfection through elections and amendments. Carp about the cost but support your country. Pay your taxes.

The best way to support our country is to stop feeding these guys. Repeal the income tax and all other taxes!

[moralist]

The best way to support our country is to stop feeding these guys. Repeal the income tax and all other taxes!

You do not have the power to end taxes. You only have power over your own life to properly order it in such a manner that its quality is not dependent upon the government. That is the functional definition of what it means to be an American.

Americans enjoy their God given rights regardless of the government.

You're forgetting that those guys were voted into office by tens of millions of people who live by exactly the same values as they do, because those guys feed the people who voted for them. My approach to this situation is simply to stand aside and let the elected and their electors get exactly what they deserve. The quality of my own life does not depend upon the government.

Greg

[Peter]

Thank you for taking the time to kick me in the behind, Francisco.

Francisco wrote:

This is not an anarchism-minarchism issue . . . . I have no idea what this has do with the topic at hand.

end quote

“Similarity of outcomes” with the components of Francisco and George H. Smith jumps out at me. Gasp- is Francisco a pseudonym for Ghs? Clearly, Francisco’s argument is Rational Anarchism, from another angle, since the government to protect individual rights needs to be funded through some means. The “stolen concept” fallacy, is the use of a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, and in this case the earlier concept is a functioning constitutional state. In other words, Francisco, the platform you are speaking from is provided by the philosophy and taxes used to fund the original Congress and national defense force. I am not simply being pragmatic. Nor am I arguing against an eventual Randian Constitution.

[Peter]

Francisco wrote of Rand as a Founding Father:

If I am "tearing up the Constitution," then so was Ayn Rand, whose political philosophy would never have granted government “the power to lay and collect taxes.”

Now that historical idea is a fit subject for George H. Smith. I will have to ask him.

Francisco wrote:

Do you have a source for this quote?

No. I think I re-quoted it from the writings of Ghs.

[Peter]

Francisco wrote:

Anyone who has read "Government Financing in a Free Society" knows that Ayn Rand maintained . . . . "the imposition of taxes does represent an initiation of force."

end quote

You are changing “No taxation without representation,” to “No taxation.” You are changing Rand’s ULTIMATE, IDEAL version of government, to what must be now and that is not probable and invites scrutiny, Monsieur Sovereign Citizen. “Sovereign Citizens” are the guys who drive around, on state built highways, without a driver’s license or paying taxes and then shoot the first deputy who pulls them over. And I am not calling you that. It is meant as levity.

Francisco asks:

Let's ask a related question: what kind of person would be willing to enjoy the freedoms of living in America without the concomitant willingness to fight for those freedoms? . . . The difference between enslaving a man full time (taking all of his labor) and enslaving him part time (seizing a portion of the products of his labor) is only one of degree.

end quote

You would be fighting for “those freedoms” by paying your taxes and abiding by the Constitution. Objectivism's core political principle is to accept America as it is but to work for a government funded from “paying for services” rendered. So I am simply going with Rand’s “actually coping” philosophical flow, when I say we need to use our “influence” to keep America and the globe safe with the resources we have while we fight for less taxation and no debt, eventually reaching utopia.

[Peter]

Francisco wrote:

Nothing done under the threat of force, including payment of taxes, implies consent or agreement. Like 99% of us, Rand paid her taxes because she did not wish to end up in a federal cage.

end quote

I disagree. Rand was a patriot. Remember she willingly went to testify at The United States House of Representatives' Committee on Un-American Activities (commonly known as the House Un-American Activities Committee, or HUAC) on October 20, 1947? She supported our military. She agreed with funding to thwart The Soviet Union. My question to Objectivists is, “Would Rand support funding of the military and our economic might and right to stop Putin in the Ukraine? I think she would.

Francisco wrote:

The best way to support our country is to stop feeding these guys. Repeal the income tax and all other taxes!

end quote

I agree . . . but in the mean time do we drop out? Immigrate? Find Galt’s Gulch within our borders? Step under the wheels of the juggernaut and stop obey the laws? Once again I say we must find our freedom within the current reality but fight for candidates in 2014 and 2016 who will TREAD in the right direction.

I just hope we will not have a family feud between Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, or Francisco and I. Fight WITH ME Francisco.

[moralist]

Once again I say we must find our freedom within the current reality...

That's what freedom is... freedom from circumstance. The freedom to pursue your own productive goals in life right now,while everything is just as it is right now.

...but fight for candidates in 2014 and 2016 who will TREAD in the right direction.

I'm optimistic about 2016.

I just hope we will not have a family feud between Ted Cruz and Rand Paul...

Yeah, nothing has a greater potential to derail the Conservative cause like ideological purity.

Greg

[Peter]

This is Walter Cronkite. The year is 1975 and you are there. CBS cameras and microphones have been following novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand as she heads for an audit by the IRS. As most of you may know, the feisty author had a movie made out of her book, “The Fountainhead,” and it starred Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal. That puts Miss Rand in the celebrity category according to our producers.

Miss Rand! Miss Rand! Would you mind holding up a moment before you ascend the stairs into the mammoth IRS Washington, DC Bureau?

Vhat do you want?

We were tipped off that you have failed to pay your taxes for twenty years. Is that correct?

It vas no failure on my part. All taxation is theft!

Miss Rand, if you hold on for a minute while we go to a commercial, CBS will compensate you for your time.

Shoo me the contrack.

Commercial break.

Did you know that you can save 15% by switching to Geico?

Everybody knows that.

Well, did you know the cause of The Civil War was slavery . . . ?

We are back. Miss Rand you immigrated to America. Why are you now turning your back on your adopted country?

My country turned itz back on me. I never agreed to finance a deficit. When I get inside that shyster's office I will tell heem to check his premises!

Does that mean you are willing to go to jail, Miss Rand?

You betcha. I would not give them a pork chop.

Commercial break.

Did you know that you can save 15% by switching to Geico?

Everybody knows that.

Well, did you know the cause of WWII was the Allies attempt to stop the holocaust . . . ?

Welcome back. Miss Rand did you know your libertarian and conservative critics are saying, “Nothing has a greater potential to derail the Conservative cause like ideological purity”? Miss Rand. Miss Rand . . . oh. She is heading inside, ladies and gentlemen. This is Walter Cronkite reporting.

[Peter]

I am discussing three things: Fiction, F(ph)ilosophy, and Facts (from her actions in real life.)

Francisco wrote:

This is not an answer. It is the equivalent of "You'll find a way, Mr. Rearden."

end quote

from Wikileaks:

“When Roark returns from a long trip with Wynand, he finds that the Cortlandt design has been changed despite his agreement with Keating. Roark dynamites the building to prevent the subversion of his vision.”

end quote

However Francisco, despite her fiction and philosophy that is not how Ayn Rand behaved, in real life. She lived in several places in California and New York. She did not have disputes with local zoning laws, land lords or tenant associations. She obeyed the law and understood that the U.S. Constitution describes the concept of “Eminent Domain,” in the fifth amendment. It requires that eminent domain, or the government’s use of someone’s private property, be coupled with just compensation to the owner for what was taken. The Supreme Court just decided a case, returning “railroad” land to the original owners now that some railroads are out of business.

I could go through the Lexicon, Francisco and Greg, and describe similar situations where Ayn Rand’s Philosophy or fiction precisely define her beliefs, but her actions were quite moderate. Of course I think “ideological purity” is what is needed in a “political philosophy.” A party must stand for something. If principles can be succinctly described in a party platform, fine. Cruz and Rand Paul are on the same express train. I think a decent platform can be fashioned from republican / conservative / libertarian / and Ayn Randian philosophy. And I pinky swear.

[moralist]

Miss Rand did you know your libertarian and conservative critics are saying, “Nothing has a greater potential to derail the Conservative cause like ideological purity”?

Except I'm not her critic. I was referring to Conservatives dividing their vote by infighting over ideological purity, which throws elections to the Democrats.

By the way, a very clever vignette, Peter.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

Thank you for taking the time to kick me in the behind, Francisco.

Francisco wrote:

This is not an anarchism-minarchism issue . . . . I have no idea what this has do with the topic at hand.

end quote

“Similarity of outcomes” with the components of Francisco and George H. Smith jumps out at me. Gasp- is Francisco a pseudonym for Ghs? Clearly, Francisco’s argument is Rational Anarchism, from another angle, since the government to protect individual rights needs to be funded through some means. The “stolen concept” fallacy, is the use of a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, and in this case the earlier concept is a functioning constitutional state. In other words, Francisco, the platform you are speaking from is provided by the philosophy and taxes used to fund the original Congress and national defense force. I am not simply being pragmatic. Nor am I arguing against an eventual Randian Constitution.

What nonsense. Ayn Rand attended a Bolshevik-controlled university. Ergo, she was committing the stolen concept fallacy by using her study of philosophy and history there to criticize the Soviets?

Since there are ways of maintaining law and order and providing for defense without resorting to armed robbery, there is nothing contradictory about living in America while demanding an end to the government's systematic assault on property rights.

In fact, the contradiction would be to claim that a free society can be defended through the initiation of force.

The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the following premises: that the government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income—that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion. “Government Financing in a Free Society”

Francisco wrote of Rand as a Founding Father:

If I am "tearing up the Constitution," then so was Ayn Rand, whose political philosophy would never have granted government “the power to lay and collect taxes.”

Now that historical idea is a fit subject for George H. Smith. I will have to ask him.

Francisco wrote:

Do you have a source for this quote?

No. I think I re-quoted it from the writings of Ghs.

If you cannot confirm its authenticity you have no business using it.

Francisco wrote:

Anyone who has read "Government Financing in a Free Society" knows that Ayn Rand maintained . . . . "the imposition of taxes does represent an initiation of force."

end quote

You are changing “No taxation without representation,” to “No taxation.” You are changing Rand’s ULTIMATE, IDEAL version of government, to what must be now and that is not probable and invites scrutiny, Monsieur Sovereign Citizen. “Sovereign Citizens” are the guys who drive around, on state built highways, without a driver’s license or paying taxes and then shoot the first deputy who pulls them over. And I am not calling you that. It is meant as levity.

Francisco asks:

Let's ask a related question: what kind of person would be willing to enjoy the freedoms of living in America without the concomitant willingness to fight for those freedoms? . . . The difference between enslaving a man full time (taking all of his labor) and enslaving him part time (seizing a portion of the products of his labor) is only one of degree.

end quote

You would be fighting for “those freedoms” by paying your taxes and abiding by the Constitution. Objectivism's core political principle is to accept America as it is but to work for a government funded from “paying for services” rendered. So I am simply going with Rand’s “actually coping” philosophical flow, when I say we need to use our “influence” to keep America and the globe safe with the resources we have while we fight for less taxation and no debt, eventually reaching utopia.

Changing? I have never said taxation with representation is legitimate. Neither did Ayn Rand. "The imposition of taxes does represent an initiation of force." This statement is true no matter what size, shape or color the government assumes.

I am not morally permitted to threaten a man with a gun and grab the fruits of his labors. Nor is any other man, even if he has taken on the title "president," "governor," or "mayor."

A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. --Ayn Rand, "Collectivized Rights"

If we "accepted America as it is," we would be accepting a government that has nationalized education, banking, transportation, communications, drugs and now healthcare. There is no reason why a rational, self-respecting individual should accept any part of that arrangement.

By the way, the phrase, "Monsieur Sovereign Citizen" is just a cheap ad hominem.

Francisco wrote:

Nothing done under the threat of force, including payment of taxes, implies consent or agreement. Like 99% of us, Rand paid her taxes because she did not wish to end up in a federal cage.

end quote

I disagree. Rand was a patriot. Remember she willingly went to testify at The United States House of Representatives' Committee on Un-American Activities (commonly known as the House Un-American Activities Committee, or HUAC) on October 20, 1947? She supported our military. She agreed with funding to thwart The Soviet Union. My question to Objectivists is, “Would Rand support funding of the military and our economic might and right to stop Putin in the Ukraine? I think she would.

Francisco wrote:

The best way to support our country is to stop feeding these guys. Repeal the income tax and all other taxes!

end quote

I agree . . . but in the mean time do we drop out? Immigrate? Find Galt’s Gulch within our borders? Step under the wheels of the juggernaut and stop obey the laws? Once again I say we must find our freedom within the current reality but fight for candidates in 2014 and 2016 who will TREAD in the right direction.

I just hope we will not have a family feud between Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, or Francisco and I. Fight WITH ME Francisco.

I challenge you to find any statement by Rand that the coerced financing of government as it existed in her lifetime was legitimate or that advocating voluntary financing should be postponed due to the "emergency" needs of her government.

Considering that we have drifted even further away from capitalism the unknown ideal in the three decades since Rand's death, now more than ever is it time to oppose taxation, as it is being used to maintain, fortify and grow a vicious regime of Marxists, progressives and other enemies of a free society.

Does that mean you are willing to go to jail, Miss Rand?

You betcha. I would not give them a pork chop.

In this fiction Rand says she'd be willing to go to jail to avoid paying taxes.

And just what is the point of the spoof? To ridicule the idea that Rand engaged in tax resistance? No one on this forum has suggested any such thing.

Add the strawman to your ad hominem.

I am discussing three things: Fiction, F(ph)ilosophy, and Facts (from her actions in real life.)

Francisco wrote:

This is not an answer. It is the equivalent of "You'll find a way, Mr. Rearden."

end quote

from Wikileaks:

“When Roark returns from a long trip with Wynand, he finds that the Cortlandt design has been changed despite his agreement with Keating. Roark dynamites the building to prevent the subversion of his vision.”

end quote

However Francisco, despite her fiction and philosophy that is not how Ayn Rand behaved, in real life. She lived in several places in California and New York. She did not have disputes with local zoning laws, land lords or tenant associations. She obeyed the law and understood that the U.S. Constitution describes the concept of “Eminent Domain,” in the fifth amendment. It requires that eminent domain, or the government’s use of someone’s private property, be coupled with just compensation to the owner for what was taken. The Supreme Court just decided a case, returning “railroad” land to the original owners now that some railroads are out of business.

I could go through the Lexicon, Francisco and Greg, and describe similar situations where Ayn Rand’s Philosophy or fiction precisely define her beliefs, but her actions were quite moderate. Of course I think “ideological purity” is what is needed in a “political philosophy.” A party must stand for something. If principles can be succinctly described in a party platform, fine. Cruz and Rand Paul are on the same express train. I think a decent platform can be fashioned from republican / conservative / libertarian / and Ayn Randian philosophy. And I pinky swear.

I never claimed that Rand was a law-breaking resister of taxation or of any other form of statism. What I have been discussing is her ideas and their implications for life under creeping dictatorship today.

Rand's political philosophy does not make moral exceptions for government officials. On this she is perfectly clear:

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave.' ("Man's Rights")

When the government does confiscate our property against our will, it may at present be foolhardy for the victim to forcibly resist it. But it is the responsibility of every advocate of a free society to identify taxation for what it is: an immoral, unjustified act of aggression by a gang of armed thugs against citizens made progressively weaker and weaker by prior aggressions.

It is only adding insult to injury for a supposed defender of capitalism to claim that the income tax is some sort of self-chosen obligation or "donation." Nothing voluntary carries with it the threat of a prison term.

[moralist]

When the government does seize our property against our will, it may at present be foolhardy to forcibly resist it. But it is the responsibility of every advocate of a free society to identify taxation for what it is: an immoral, unjustified act of aggression by a gang of armed thugs against citizens made progressively weaker and weaker by prior aggressions.

I see that process flowing in exactly the opposite direction...

...for it is peoples' own moral weakness that renders them prey of the government they deserve.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

...for it is peoples' own moral weakness that renders them prey of the government they deserve.

Greg

Prove it with objective evidence.

[tmj]

Greg

So.. the Inuit were crafty enough to convince Seward to do what they wanted, or are to blame for letting him take them from the Russian empire?

[Peter]

Francisco wrote:

Since there are ways of maintaining law and order and providing for defense without resorting to armed robbery, there is nothing contradictory about living in America while demanding an end to the government's systematic assault on property rights.

end quote

I totally agree. I am not joking at your “fire” Francisco. I am exploring your “do nothing attitude” to whatever is proposed for government to do. How did her philosophy impact Rand's personal life, in her daily actions outside of writing and lecturing? The following letter is illuminating. Ayn Rand backed Dewey and Goldwater, for instance. It appears Reidy is answering other’s letters on Atlantis.

Peter Taylor

From: "Peter Reidy" <peterreidy@hotmail.com>

To: reason_on@hotmail.com, atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Rand's Politics

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:16:24

Concerning Hardesty's assertions, here are some facts as best I know them:

- "In 1964 Rand backed Barry Goldwater for President and stated in a March, 1964 interview with Playboy, that the US had a 'right' to invade Cuba, the USSR or any other 'slave pen'."

She backed Goldwater with reservations, and the quotes are accurate. She deals at greater length with the right to invade in "Collectivized Rights".

- "Rand was vehemently opposed to the 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Act which prohibited atmospheric nuclear testing and which has saved countless lives, just here in the US of people who would otherwise be poisoned by radiation, from above ground nuclear tests."

She opposed it in passing (not "vehemently") in the Playboy interview and referred readers to Teller's testimony. The rest is an early example of the junk science that has become so much more prevalent lately.

- "Rand thought it morally okay to bomb villages in Vietnam and that it was just tough that noncombatants were killed, an attitude that ARI extends to the whole Arab World today."

I think she would have agreed, though I don't know of anyplace where she actually said so. The part about ARI is true.

- "Rand was against any form of social welfare, she favored a free hand for the FBI & CIA to combat 'spies'".

Correct about social welfare. "Free hand" is too vague to judge, and the scarequotes bespeak a serious ignorance of twentieth-century American history.

- "She was strongly for Nixon's appointment of William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court, whom Reagan later elevated to Chief Justice, [sic] he is a hardcore rightwing ideologue."

Questionable. She condemned the double standard of the Rehnquist opposition and said, at most, that his record was cause for guarded optimism. ("The Disenfranchisement of the Right", I think. In "Censorship, Local and Express", she explicitly repudiated him, years before he became Chief Justice. "Hardcore rightwing ideologue" is, once more, impermissibly vague.

- "Rand was for the death penalty in principle."

Correct, though Nathaniel Branden actually authored the statement, in "The Objectivist Newsletter".

- "Rand was opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act".

True. See her essay "Racism".

- "According to the late Roy M. Cohn, Rand thought Joe McCarthy was too soft on communism!"

Don't know Cohn actually said this or, if he did, whether his report was accurate. Her only published mention of McCarthy is in "Extremism, or The Art of Smearing". She said that she was not an admirer, but not for the

same reasons as most people. She wouldn't have liked his irresponsibility and his anti-intellectualism. As far as I know, she never said what Hardesty says Cohn said she said.

- "Rand's political mentor was Isabel Paterson, an arch-conservative and anti-Semite, according to Barbara Branden's biography".

Correct, though Barbara Branden says that they eventually broke with each other and that Paterson's penchant for nutzoid hostility was the main reason.

What do you mean by "the McCarthy trials"? Strictly speaking, he held hearings, not trials. I suspect you are conflating them with the HUAC movie hearings, where Rand was a witness. These were quite separate events, and she had no personal involvement in the former.

Did you and Hardesty ever agree on what "rightwing" means? It strikes me as an example of what she called an anti-concept (see "Extremism").

Peter

[Peter]

Not surprisingly, the Objectivist movement also has its “can you” and “should you” factions, and combinations of the two. I have been questioning three things on this thread: Rand’s philosophy and lectures, Rand’s fictional accounts, and Rand’s actions. If she were alive, wouldn’t it be great to sit in her living room and have a town hall meeting? Well, maybe after she stopped smoking.

Peter

What was Ayn Rand’s view of the libertarian movement?

Ayn Rand was opposed to the libertarian movement of her time.

In 1971 she wrote:

For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs. [“Brief Summary,” The Objectivist, Vol. 10, Sep. 1971]

And in 1972 she wrote:

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (e.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see “The Anatomy of Compromise” in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) [“What Can One Do?” The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7]

Rand was often asked about libertarians and the Libertarian Party in the question-and-answer periods following her lectures. Here, from pp.72-76 of Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, ed. Robert Mayhew, are some of those questions and her answers. (In the excerpt below, “Q” stands for question, “AR” for Ayn Rand, “FHF” for Ford Hall Forum, a venue where Ayn Rand was often invited to speak, “OC” for Objective Communication, a course given by Leonard Peikoff in which Ayn Rand participated in some of the question-and-answer periods, and “71” for the year 1971.)

Q: What do you think of the libertarian movement?

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement. [FHF 71]

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party?

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis—they’re not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers; but this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. (George Wallace is no great thinker—he’s a demagogue, though with some courage—but even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for president—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern. [FHF 72]

Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party?

AR: I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they shouldn’t rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issues are so serious today that to form a new party on some half-baked and some borrowed—I won’t say from whom—ideas, is irresponsible, and in today’s context nearly immoral. [FHF 73]

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you do, so why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party?

AR: They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now it’s a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas. [FHF 74]

Q: Have you heard of Libertarian presidential candidate Roger MacBride? What do you think of him?

AR: My answer should be “I don’t think of him.” There’s nothing to hear. The trouble in the world today is philosophical; only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency. [FHF 76]

Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively?

AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—that is, the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether to be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable. I’ll take Jane Fonda over them. [Earlier during this same Q&A period, AR had been asked about Jane Fonda. For the question and her answer, see below, p. 80.] [OC 80]

Q: Why don’t you approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

AR: Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They’re lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program. [FHF 81]

Q: Libertarians provide intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them?

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout history: by means of people who understand ideas and teach them to others. Further, it should be clear that I reject the filthy slogan “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by the Communists and the Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism. [FHF 81]

Robert Nozick, Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University, was a well-known libertarian.

Q: Could you comment on Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia?

AR: I don’t like to read this author, because I don’t like bad eclectics—not in architecture, and certainly not in politics and philosophy—particularly when I’m one of the pieces butchered. [FHF 77]

Q: What’s your view on the idea of competing governments?

AR: It’s an irresponsible piece of nonsense. That’s the only answer the question deserves. [FHF 70]

Q: Why is the lack of government in Galt’s Gulch (in Atlas Shrugged) any different from anarchy, which you object to?

AR: Galt’s Gulch is not a society; it’s a private estate. It’s owned by one man who carefully selected the people admitted. Even then, they had a judge as an arbitrator, if anything came up; only nothing came up among them, because they shared the same philosophy. But if you had a society in which all shared in one philosophy, but without a government, that would be dreadful. Galt’s Gulch probably consisted of about, optimistically, a thousand people who represented the top geniuses of the world. They agreed on fundamentals, but they would never be in total agreement. They didn’t need a government because if they had disagreements, they could resolve them rationally.

But project a society of millions, in which there is every kind of viewpoint, every kind of brain, every kind of morality—and no government. That’s the Middle Ages, your no-government society. Man was left at the mercy of bandits, because without government, every criminally inclined individual resorts to force, and every morally inclined individual is helpless. Government is an absolute necessity if individual rights are to be protected, because you don’t leave force at the arbitrary whim of other individuals. Libertarian anarchism is pure whim worship, because what they refuse to recognize is the need of objectivity among men—particularly men of different views. And it’s good that people within a nation should have different views, provided we respect each other’s rights.

No one can guard rights, except a government under objective laws. What if McGovern had his gang of policemen, and Nixon had his, and instead of campaigning they fought in the streets? This has happened throughout history. Rational men are not afraid of government. In a proper society, a rational man doesn’t have to know the government exists, because the laws are clear and he never breaks them. [FHF 72]

[moralist]

...for it is peoples' own moral weakness that renders them prey of the government they deserve.

Greg

Prove it with objective evidence.

My own life.

It is undeniably objective proof to me, and to no one else. You can find out for yourself simply by giving up blaming others long enough to take an honest look at the just and deserved consequences your own actions set into motion. It is that act of taking full personal responsibility for what your own actions spin into motion that sets you free!

There is absolutely nothing to prevent you from continuing to regarding yourself as a helpless innocent victim of unjust oppression... just as there is nothing to prevent you from getting exactly what you deserve as the result of your own free choice.

Greg

[Peter]

From the last letter, Rand said:

No one can guard rights, except a government under objective laws. What if McGovern had his gang of policemen, and Nixon had his, and instead of campaigning they fought in the streets? This has happened throughout history. Rational men are not afraid of government. In a proper society, a rational man doesn’t have to know the government exists, because the laws are clear and he never breaks them. [FHF 72]

end quote

I am short on time today and will not be able to answer Francisco’s letter point by point and I am drawing a blank. What is the above citation, FHF 72? Francisco, if I cannot correctly attribute would you mind considering the quote’s contents?

Francisco wrote:

In fact, the contradiction would be to claim that a free society can be defended through the initiation of force.

end quote

There you go again. Once again you are saying *laws* and taxation are the initiation of force, because if you break them, the sheriff will arrest you. That is the same as the Rational Anarchist position that all government is illegitimate. Because these two positions fail to take reality into account it is akin to saying, “All property is theft.” I am not a pragmatist, but there are shades of gray. One fights for the good but still walks into the voting booth to select the lesser of two evils.

The difference between the two evils can be enormous and will affect your personal life. An example is: McCain was better than Obama, or Romney was better than Obama. Within our “mixed economy, and mixed up government there is an area of coexistence between the ideal and the everyday. Today, right now, inside our semi free society fight for what is right but do not exile yourself into the “fringe” of the sound bites, “all taxation is theft”, or “all government is illegitimate.” Instead of being an Objectivist activist you become the loner, the guy everyone avoids, the guy at the town hall meeting who gets booed. This forum is certainly the place to be pure of heart but that purity should not induce a “do nothing” response to legitimate crises, like an attack on Israel or the Ukraine, voting, obeying the law, etc.

[Peter]

Here is one last quote to prove a point and to bolster Francisco’s argument but I cannot swear it is from its attributed source.

Peter

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."